My research interests span the linguistic sub-fields traditionally identified as syntax and morphology.

I work on phenomena that resist explanation in terms of sound and/or meaning. (If you are unfamiliar with linguistics, the very idea that such phenomena exist might strike you as a little bit counterintuitive. But phenomena of this sort are surprisingly common in natural language!)

Lately, I have been particularly interested in modularity in grammar. Specifically, I have come to believe that much of what passes for “syntax” these days is actually semantics, masquerading as syntax. (Or, if you prefer: semantics, obliquely described using the vocabulary of syntactic theory.) I don’t think that’s what syntax is, or should be; I think we can do better; and I think phenomena involving agreement and case hold the key to this. That’s because these are hierarchy-sensitive phenomena that cannot be reduced to interpretation, and thus, provide an ideal window into that which is quintessentially syntactic. At the same time, I believe that there are phenomena out there that have traditionally been treated as obviously semantic, which, upon more careful cross-linguistic examination, turn out to be truly syntactic.